[Server-devel] XS 0.5 upgrade notes

[Martin Langhoff]

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Jerry Vonau <jvonau at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Well, since /etc/yum.conf is provided by yum itself, there should of been a
> yum.conf.rpm(olpc?)new file created as not to overwrite our modified one.

Ok - I've pushed out a new xs-config that should address the issue.
The problem is that the yum.conf file in xs-0.4 was tampered with from
a %post script. Nasty stuff, so the user 'hasn't changed it' but rpm
things it's changed.

There's a sane and safe workaround -- but your peer review is more
than welcome -- in the new xs-config. Can you (or Douglas) confirm
that the old file we want to replace has a sha1 of
2f12835cb11f100be169abcc8bff72525a25cff7 ?

The patch is here:
http://dev.laptop.org/git?p=projects/xs-config;a=commitdiff;h=b81ed4df7a1a534fcf8c2249e739a03def3c75dd

> Think the best way out of this is to have xs-release move/rename the current
> yum.conf file.

Well, xs-release is doing the right thing, but the old xs-config made
a mess of it all.

Hmmm. Perhaps the patch I've done should be actually be placed in
xs-release instead.

> Since the topic of "yum upgrades" came up, is this support wanted? I'm
> thinking that this could be doable from the cdrom and/or across the net.

Yes. I don't know if it's reasonable for a 0.4->0.5 upgrade as it's
rather large and full of nasty odd corner cases. In other words, it
may work but if it breaks I don't think it's worthwhile to fix it.
Going forward 0.5->0.6->0.7 will probably be all F9 based so yum
updates will be trivial. When we move to F10 or F11 we'll have to
evaluate whether it's within reach. The good news is that the Fedora
team seems to be interested in polishing the "in place" update
machinery (which I assume is yum), so I want to ride on that wave if
possible.

> To help make this installation easier to use, we may want to define a
> "group" in the comps.xml file. This would allow you to install the
> xs-release rpm, to activate the repos, then do a "yum groupinstall
> xs-school-server" then your off and running...

Is that better than xs-pkgs? My concern is that comps.xml is not
modular AFAIK -- there is just one, so we can patch it, but then we'll
want to merge with the upstream one. Yes, we can do it, but it seems
awkward. I'm not clear on how we publish it either - does it become
published as part of our repo? Do we have to convince Fedora to carry
our changes to comps.xml or users to download ours and point their yum
config to it?

IOWs, I understand how a metapackage works much better :-)

> I'll have some time to throw at this in a day or so, if there is any
> interest.

Great to have you back on board!

cheers,




m
-- 
 martin.langhoff at gmail.com
 martin at laptop.org -- School Server Architect
 - ask interesting questions
 - don't get distracted with shiny stuff  - working code first
 - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff